I made a suggestion about building a houseboat on dry land in a flood-prone area might help people and their properties survive a flood, and the question was rudely discarded by the 'community' with no chance of further comments. I'm just trying to think of ideas to help people yet many of your privileged users who like to edit other peoples work seem to feel insulted if I do not agree with their non- encouraging criticism. My question here is shouldn't the content of a question even if amateurishly expressed be more important than strictly following syntax or grammar rules? More important than if the question, in the opinion of the privileged users, has too many opinions in it.

Link to original question

| |
  • $\begingroup$ Can you include some information about the question (e.g. close reason, some body content, etc.)? $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jun 3 '15 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ It's all in the question I wrote in the engineering stack exchange site under user 201044. $\endgroup$ – 201044 Jun 3 '15 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ Is it this? That doesn't match the link in the question here. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jun 3 '15 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. This is the question. $\endgroup$ – 201044 Jun 3 '15 at 16:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Please note, the OP has asked two very related questions. The first is about housing and tornadoes and has been deleted by the Community user. The second is about housing and flooding. Oddly enough, no one commented about housing being built in flood plains that experience tornadoes. $\endgroup$ – user16 Jun 3 '15 at 16:18

Why your question was deleted

From How does deleting work? on Meta Stack Exchange:

  1. The system will automatically delete closed (not as a duplicate), unlocked questions with zero or negative score having no upvoted or accepted answers or pending reopen votes, that were closed 9 or more days ago and haven't been edited in the past 9 days.

When the Community user's regular cleanup routine ran ~12 hours ago, your question met the above criteria for an "abandoned" question and so was automatically deleted.

Why your questions were closed

Your more recent question was closed for the same reason as the your first (now deleted) question, and it has nothing to do with syntax or grammar. In both cases, the first revision of the question didn't contain a question at all. You corrected that in the second revision of the deleted question by adding:

So I'm asking if it would be better in Tornado prone areas to build or rebuild houses so they are partly underground ( and made without a wooden framework) like a big stormshelter you can live in? This might save people and there properties.

After you made this edit, the question was automatically put up for review in the Reopen Queue. I completed that review by voting "Leave Closed." Note that this does not prevent any user from voting to reopen who has the necessary privileges to do so---it only removes the question from that particular review queue.

In both cases, you're looking for an open-ended discussion, which Stack Exchange does not support on its Q&A sites. The Help Center clearly states:

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK. (Discussions are of course welcome in our real time web chat.)

You want to brainstorm ideas; that's not what we do here. There are an incredible number of alternative venues on the internet for what you want to do. We even provide an Engineering chat room for discussing almost anything you want, up to and including Trevor's pizza misconceptions.

Alternatively, you can still revise your questions to fit our guidelines. More than one user, including a moderator, left you comments pointing out issues that you have yet to address. However you may feel about the tone of those comments, I assure you they are not personal. These users are trying to help you participate by explaining our expectations---and so am I.

Please familiarize yourself with the guidance in the Help Center and do not hesitate to ask questions here on Meta if you need support or would like to discuss the site itself.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ I know the users with a lot of priveledges basically 'run' these sites and you people use your strict editing policies to enforce this. There is no point inmy suggesting policy changes. It is your peoples opinion that some of my questions are 'chatty'. I have never asked open ended chatty questions. Trying to find a solution to property loss and saving people during a flood is practical... $\endgroup$ – 201044 Jun 4 '15 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ I would not use a chat room on with the non-restrictive potential for discouraging comments is a lot greater than on the regular sites. I have gotten many discouraging comments on the regular sites so I don't hold much hope for encouraging respectful discourse in any chat room. My question still stands ; I know you have a lot of strict rules on what questions and responses are allowable yet you people admit the 'rules' about what is off topic or too broad can be open to interpretation or 'hard' to define. If a question is very useful though outside your rules shouldn't it be considered? $\endgroup$ – 201044 Jun 10 '15 at 20:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Utility is the most fundamental metric for deciding whether a question belongs here—but it is utility in a very specific context. Your questions are vague and speculative; they show no understanding of or desire to engage in any engineering process. The best guidance I can give you is to ask detailed, specific questions based on actual problems that you face. $\endgroup$ – Air Jun 11 '15 at 16:47
  • $\begingroup$ My question on this meta site was neither vague or speculative ; you may call my question on the engineering site vague although building a house that is like a houseboat seems clear enough. The question on this site is about if a question with interesting content should be analysed even if it is terribly written. Even if it doesn't fit your strict definitions of clarity. $\endgroup$ – 201044 Jun 14 '15 at 2:22
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I was referring specifically to your questions on the main site that were closed and/or deleted. Not to this one on meta, which is clear, albeit based on the false premise that any of this has anything to do with your writing ability. $\endgroup$ – Air Jun 14 '15 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ Why is it a false premise; the objections to my question on the engineering site WAS partly to do with my writing ability. Instead of discussing the grammar or syntax or semantic or vagueness issues what about the original meta-question; if a user's question could be considered very useful even if rottenly written or rottenly presented etc. Or if the user's question isn't considered acceptible by the priveledged users. I know I PROBABLY won't change ANYBODY'S minds about policy issues.... $\endgroup$ – 201044 Jun 15 '15 at 11:37
  • $\begingroup$ Could your 'rules' be too strict and opinion based? $\endgroup$ – 201044 Jul 16 '15 at 14:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .